27. The representative of Argentina said, as a general comment, that there was a need to clarify that not all costs were covered under the heading "fees and costs" in the EC proposal. It only referred to "declared", "evident" or "international-level" costs, but not to "domestic" costs. It was therefore important to remember that other features of the proposed system would also entail costs. For example, there were "hidden costs", i.e. costs the national administrations of Members would have to bear at the national level. The entire system, comprising the notification and registration phases, and if Members were to follow the EC proposal, the reservation and examination procedures, would entail considerable costs at national level. By contrast, the column of the side-by-side paper (TN/IP/W/12) reserved for the joint proposal under this heading was blank. This was because the joint proposal would not result in substantial costs; they would be borne by the WTO in the same way as other notification procedures.
28. She said that the EC proposal contained elements that gave rise to many uncertainties. For example, in paragraphs 9.2 and 9.3 there was no estimate on how much would the core budget for this administering body would be. This meant that such a body would start its work depending on a credit which would be only paid back later. Members needed to dispel this uncertainty and have an estimate of the initial budget for such a system before starting its work.
29. She further asked about the reason for the inclusion of a new element which appeared in square brackets in paragraph 9.4, namely the "renewal of the multilateral registration".
30. She said the EC was proposing a complex system with a "basic fee" and an "individual fee". Recalling a previous comment she had made in relation to paragraph 3.3 of the EC proposal that there was no justification for "individual fees", she said that, read in conjunction with that provision, paragraph 9.7, which stated that the notification of trademarks was "[f]or information purposes only", would in fact be a prerequisite for Members from which this notification was being requested. Additionally, unlike paragraph 9.7(a), which made express reference to the information referred to in paragraph 3.3 the "monitoring" mentioned in paragraph 9.7(b) was not reflected anywhere else in the EC proposal. Did this mean that there would be an obligation to present a notification and then an additional obligation for the permanent monitoring of conflicting trademark applications? She did not see how Members would actually implement such an obligation.
31. As to paragraph 9.8 of the EC proposal, she associated herself with what Australia had said on this point.
32. As to paragraph 9.9, which provided that the WTO Secretariat would calculate the addition of the two fees and indicate it to the applicant, she asked how the Secretariat would calculate this individual fee. The designed mechanism would create obligations that were not in the part of the proposal dedicated to notifications. For example, according to paragraph 3.3 of the EC proposal, every time a Member notified a geographical indication it also had to present information on trademarks, with an advance payment of the fee. How would the WTO Secretariat calculate the individual fees without knowing the costs incurred by Members in the monitoring and searching of trademarks?
